I hold that the world is will to power and nothing besidesCapitalism and Socialism both are will to power, expressions.Socialism is an idea, I hold, and Capitalism a spontaneous phenomenon, an emerging, phusis, the ancient Greek notion of nature as an unfolding-ruling.

Capitalism is harnessed by hard souls, hard on themselves, it is the prerogative of the few. This much is true, though I dont know about the percentages. Id say more like 20 percent of the people on Earth hold wealth that can be spent freely to an effect on other peoples livelihoods. As I make a point of mentioning I do not think this money is being spent wisely. Musk is one of the few who makes a point of putting himself out there with all his power and being cool on behalf of humanity in the pursuit of a cleaner planet and a wider scope of operations as mankind.

Nietzsche spoke of higher men, and then of the superman, as the project of these higher men. Socialism as an idea has also involved higher men, and women for that matter, it has been respectable enough as a competitor, it has struck a mighty blow on Capitalism, designating it as an ideology, degrading it to merely a form of politics, rather than a naturally emergent prospering. It is now compelled to agitate against Socialism as if Socialism is not a form of itself.

I see Socialism as the shadow self of world capitalism. It is a naturally emergent phenomenon among those parts of human nature that can not take care of themselves, let alone others. What it really is is an appeal, from the "weak" to the wealthy to spend their powers more to the benefit of this or that portion of the world which is sick and cant help itself. This portion has received a power from Marx to organize in a faith. It has taken on the substance of divine ordinance and people simply bow to its ideas like boulders they carry and toss around, blindly except to the tricky mud below their feet, which they interpret as The World.

There will be a mass religion built of Socialist pathos, it is hard to imagine a world without it. The question is what the capitalistic class will be like at that point. Nietzsche foresaw family-unions controlling the educated masses of the west like clay, and hints that the purpose of this will be the superman.

I guess my point is that the world is will to power, not will to consensus.

Is, ought to be, and can be.the father, the son and the holy spirit.For all I care.

Capitalism is. Justice ought to be. And something, a third phenomenon, can be.Not an utopia but an unfolding-mastering.

Something in which justice is seen in relation to merit, as merit is directly literal.No cushions. Existence as the fast paced dirt rally that it is closer to its physical sources, you need your copilot, and you cant be bothered about much else than the road ahead.If this is given to everybody, capitalism is complete. The worker will control his destiny and he employs the elements of the world as they employ him.In the meantime people are still going to be smoking cigars in leather armchairs, projecting the course of self-employed workers in the terms of ancient, established trends and values. We are at the juncture now, this time is a sole occurrence, a planet is awakening as a single intelligence. Philosophy online, if it is gritty enough, is a pioneering function of this event. This here, in our oil state as designated by the self declared benevolent ruler Carleas, is a cortex.

Ok, that's good, that's a definite something. How are you going to execute that idea?

Communist: "Fuck you!"

Capitalist: "Like this and like this and like that, thoough, you know, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy!"

Socialist: "What is an idea?"

The truth is, the communist cannot answer because, no matter how sweet the idea sounds, it is inherently divorced from reality.

Like I can imagine now, prometheous75 thinking how obviously the capitalist is superfluous, how it's the simplest of thought experiments to imagine workers working together to get shit running as complex and fruitful as a nuclear reactor. But they don't exist in real life. Actual workers don't want noneothat. It's cruel even to try to demand it of him. A worker just wants a nice life with his wife and whatnot. Capitalism can do this, though it takes some building. It is not a perfection, a platonic idea like communism, that comes down from heaven and is implemented. It is built.

The thought experiment is just that, a thought experiment. The soviet is not in fact possible, not feasable, no matter how possible it is. That is the absolute only reason why it hasn't, why Russian soviets and Lybian workers' whatevers and Venezuelan colectivos only ever really were ways for the would-be rulers to build deeply vertical command structures to demolish capitalism. That's all they can ever be. What's more, that's all the members of the soviets ever want it or need it to be. That's life man. That's facts. That's truth. And yes, there will always be a percentage, maybe it is Jakob's 20 or so percent, that will actually be a creative train and be frustrated by the state of soviets. Those people would undoubtedly be better served by accepting his brothers as the tranquil working men they want to be and take it upon themselves to build something beautiful that is built only on themselves, not some idealized collective.

The people will love you for it, and you will discover that they are right to love you for it, and you will love them back. Cause people are cool. It's just, you know, not everybody is a Dr Dre.

Last edited by Pedro I Rengel on Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:The truth is, the communist cannot answer because, no matter how sweet the idea sounds, it is inherently divorced from reality.

The problem of Capitalism is that it's a good idea in theory, but not in practice. This inversion of the popular mantra works just as well.Human nature is unfortunately just too social and cooperative. If only we could all be how Capitalism needs us to be in order for the ideal to be realised.

Ok, that's good, that's a definite something. How are you going to execute that idea?

Communist: "Fuck you!"

Capitalist: "Like this and like this and like that, thoough, you know, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy!"

Socialist: "What is an idea?"

Hahaha

The truth is, the communist cannot answer because, no matter how sweet the idea sounds, it is inherently divorced from reality.

Indeed. And the further it is removed from reality, the sweeter it sounds to them.Heroin. Dude. All of them are those 3 heroin losers.

Like I can imagine now, prometheous75 thinking how obviously the capitalist is superfluous, how it's the simplest of thought experiments to imagine workers working together to get shit running as complex and fruitful as a nuclear reactor. But they don't exist in real life. Actual workers don't want noneothat. It's cruel even to try to demand it of him. A worker just wants a nice life with his wife and whatnot. Capitalism can do this, though it takes some building. It is not a perfection, a platonic idea like communism, that comes down from heaven and is implemented. It is built.

Yes. It never occurred to Prommy that he might have to actually do something, and get some other "workers" to do stuff too. It is just supposed to happen out of the blue when capitalism has magically disappeared.

The thought experiment is just that, a thought experiment. The soviet is not in fact possible, not feasable, no matter how possible it is.

Prom also forgot to mention that the Soviets were obliged to follow the Secretary Generals 5 year plan. The Soviet system was very much top down. It was also designed and implemented top down, obviously, not that this is an issue for these faux bottom uppers.

That is the absolute only reason why it hasn't, why Russian soviets and Lybian workers' whatevers and Venezuelan colectivos only ever really were ways for the would-be rulers to build deeply vertical command structures to demolish capitalism. That's all they can ever be. What's more, that's all the members of the soviets ever want it or need it to be. That's life man. That's facts. That's truth.

Especially since Sovietism was an effective attack only on Czarism, not on Capitalism. The revolution happened in Russia because what it replaced was a preindustrial feudalism.

And yes, there will always be a percentage, maybe it is Jakob's 20 or so percent, that will actually be a creative train and be frustrated by the state of soviets. Those people would undoubtedly be better served by accepting his brothers as the tranquil working men they want to be and take it upon themselves to build something beautiful that is built only on themselves, not some idealized collective.

The people will love you for it, and you will discover that they are right to love you for it, and you will love them back. Cause people are cool. It's just, you know, not everybody is a Dr Dre.

Yes, and it takes the occasional Dr Dre to show people that they are cool.Without the occasional capitalistic super-success, meaning some cultural renaissance man, people are in drab lives without any joys except to play out their envy-driven fantasies of the World Revolution, after which they will suddenly magically not feel so useless.

Bottom line, no matter how much sense we make, we won't make people more talented, driven, or honest. At best we can offer them a cool glimpse of themselves. A glimpse of their cool selves. At best. But we need to be capitalistic as hell to accomplish that.

(Bloomberg) -- The number of wealthy households in the U.S. reached a new high last year, roughly equivalent to the entire population of Sweden or Portugal. More than 10.2 million households had a net worth of $1 million to $5 million, not including the value of their primary residence,

The one disadvantage of the internet, is that it gives you pestilence carrying worms the power to drip your filth on decent hard working people.

I have tried to bring light and reason into your lives, been very generous in avoiding your provocations and keeping to my points.

Why do I care so much for such scum as you, why have I always tried to talk sense to broken souls... I really don't know.

Only the weakest constitutions can be seen cowering from confrontation while accusing the other of running. You scum are here purely to soil this environment, to hurt whatever cause people are fighting for.

One could forgive an illiterate such behaviour but in someone who is clearly capable of reading, to be so treacherous is proof true malice.

Not one point Ive made has been addressed. Ive only been receiving mindless insult and now threats. I remain astonished at the depravity of the socialist character. Trust me when I say that it literally makes me sick.

Keep walking this path, you pieces of demon filth. See where it gets you, where you will end up. And when you do end up there, you may remember I tried to divert you from your course to that final dread.

Perhaps their minds are simply leaking vats. Not able to hold a thought, so when they speak it isn't a full body of thought that expresses itself but just... stuff leaking out. By this leaking their mind seeks to empty itself.

In fact state Communism both in USSR and China have served mostly to take power from a fragile, decadent royal house at the point where the emerging sciences demanded stronger hands and colder minds.

Mao simply used Communism to lead China out of the "century of humiliation" and restore its self image as world primacy. Lenin and then Stalin made out of Russia a domineering country where it had previously been rather docile, aware of its modest cultural role with respect to France and Holland and other nations where it sent delegations, sometimes with the Czar present, to be taught modern means.

What Lenin and Mao did is something that seems to me very much a Nietzschean line of action, most unlike what Hitler did. Stalin is another category, he was the first real International Socialist in the sense of having usurped half of Europe and dominated the leverages in much of the rest of the continent.

If one can get a Union to work, as it did in the premarxist socialism of England, then this is simply leveraging value in a proper way.

What went wrong with the unions is that they were blindly ideological. Whichever power thinks of itself as being entitled by historical necessity is bound to be seduced into all kinds of practices as the goal glibly justifies any chosen means. So you get union leaders pathetic in their grime like catholic priests, anyone who can take the burden of leadership among men and women who have never had to lead before and thus do not know what leadership is made of, will be tested by the tricks of powers of longer experience. It is a game, in the sense that there are rules set by the nature of the goal.

The goal precludes permission of that which would universally delete the goal. So the rules are based on that. Ladders that come down at certain commands. Gates of Moria above the head.

Unions are luxuries. As a system, as an ideology, they obviously can't work (see discussion on soviets above). You can't have all workers unionize; the first group this hurts is the workers. Small and upcoming operations just can't afford to pay more than their balance sheets demand, which is also why they can settle for less skilled work.

But in large, complex, established operations, where also more skilled workers as well as workers that know the operation well are needed, good faith and realistic negociations are good for both parties and unions make sense. I've seen it happen.

Union of X type of workers is a recipe for "just build the factory somwhere else" or truly sub-par education systems. But union of workers of X company, for the right scale of company, is good for all.